Skip to content

· Private foundation

Nojovits Family Charity Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$10k
Granted FY2018
29
Grants FY2018
1
States reached
$5k
Largest

Read this first · the figures below need context

67% of Nojovits Family Charity Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to The Ojc Fund, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 2 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2018, the last year Nojovits Family Charity Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 10 organizations, $10k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

5
’17
10
’18
3
’19
3
’20
4
’21
3
’22
0
’23
1
’24
2
’25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
0166% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Philanthropy$178kReligion$82kInternational$38kYouth Development$1kHealth$48Public Safety & Disaster$20Other$0
02FY2018 · 29 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$20
Median grant
1
States reached
$662k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$5,000
Reb Meir Baal Haness$2,638
Cong Rav Chesed$500
Individual grant recipient$360
Cong Yetev Lev$256
RCCS$206
UTA$190
Cong Eizer Lamuzen Inc$180
Individual grant recipient$50
Individual grant recipient$38
Kolel Shomre Hachomos$36
Cong Ohel Torah$31
Individual grant recipient$28
Chonen Vnosen$23
Mikvah USA$20
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY21–21, $30) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%CHAIM MEDICAL RESOURCES: $30 → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

70%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$130k · 13 repeat orgs$56k to everyone else

13 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2018, 11 since wound down; 40 grantees were first funded in FY2018 (too recent to call). Read against FY2018, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
13

Total granted

$130k
$3k

Still filing today

8%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 73% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
PhilanthropyHuman ServicesReligionEducationOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • YL
    YETEV LEV INC
    3× · 2020–2022 · $38k
  • CY
    CONGREGATION YETEV LEV
    2× · 2024–2025 · $30k
  • BH
    BAIS HAMEDRASH ATERES CHAIM HANIPOL
    2× · 2021–2025 · $11k

Funded once

  • CA
    CONGREGATION AHAVAS TZDOKAH VCHESED INC
    one grant, 2017 · $1k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $800
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $400
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
2
Ahavas Torah V'chesed
Philanthropy
3
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
4
Keren Avraham Shmuel Inc Wachman
Philanthropy
5
Keren Toldos Yitzchok
Philanthropy
6
Gemilas Chesed Kramer Inc
Philanthropy
7
Ksav Sofer Inc
Philanthropy
8
The Nochim & Rivka Zeldes Foundation
—
9
The Mikvah Ltd
Philanthropy
10
Chevras Shabbos Kodesh Podcast Fellowship
Religion
11
Lev Tamim Inc
Philanthropy
12
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chaim Medical Resource Inc; the most unlike its peers is Keren Torah Vchesed. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

8 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 8 of the 67 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE OJC FUND: $207,250 · EducationTHE OJC FUND+1 more: $18 · EducationCONGREGATION YETEV LEV: $30,000 · OtherCONGREGATION YETEV LEVBAIS HAMEDRASH ATERES CHAIM HANIPOL: $10,500 · OtherBAIS HAMEDRASH ATERES CHAIM HANIPOLIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientRAV CHESED: $8,800 · OtherRAV CHESEDSUDOS EREV: $8,500 · OtherSUDOS EREVMATBIAORG: $6,700 · OtherBAIS CHUNA: $6,200 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $6,000 · OtherMERKACHAS BESUMIM: $5,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $5,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $5,000 · Other+49 more: $42,507 · Other+49 moreYETEV LEV INC: $37,500 · PhilanthropyYETEV LEV I…MATBIA CHARITIES INC: $3,883 · PhilanthropyMATBIA CHAR…+1 more: $5 · PhilanthropyCHAIM MEDICAL RESOURCE INC: $30 · Human ServicesMIKVAH USA INC: $20 · Religion
Education$207,268Other$144,707Philanthropy$41,388Human Services$30Religion$20

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE OJC FUND: $207,250 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetCHAIM MEDICAL RESOURCE INC: $30 over 1y, 30% of budgetMIKVAH USA INC: $20 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCATSKILLS HATZALAH INC: $18 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds THE OJC FUND ↗
  • Who funds YETEV LEV INC ↗
  • Who funds MATBIA CHARITIES INC ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Ojc FundNY32.6× affinity16 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Nimlach Foundation · Kanfei Yoneh Foundation · Blum Foundation · The Lexicon Foundation Inc · Yr Foundation · Bochner Foundation · R' Shaya Ben Moshe Foundation · Zelig and Rifky Weiss Family Foundation Inc · Bbc Foundation · Madanim Foundation · A&E Hauer Family Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Nojovits Family Charity Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Nojovits Family Charity Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 67 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Nojovits Family Charity’s filings →

    More from the funding graph